Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because I believe it's origin, and the origin of everything here, was supernatural. I'm distinguishing origins from current processes. That is, I believe the processes were originally designed and have since run themselves. Kind of like the watchmaker described by Newton and Descartes. Does God still intervene? Yes, we call such events "answered prayers", "miracles", etc.
Yes, I'm unfazed. What do you suppose a formal demonstration the universal common ancestry hypothesis would consist of?I take it you are unfazed that these words appear in peer-reviewed science, not some religious document:
"A formal demonstration of the universal common ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle"
Which computers use what?Which computer suse them. The seven in your car?
I don't know how the sun formed. But I'm certain God was behind it, because he's the originator of what we call natural processes. Regardless of whether a Christian believes in a young earth or an old one, we all believe this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That is, everything we see is due to the will of God.And what do you think of the mountains of testable and verifiable evidence that the sun formed through a natural process? Why do you discount that evidence?
What are the details?And what do you think of the mountains of testable and verifiable evidence that the sun formed through a natural process? Why do you discount that evidence?
I don't know how the sun formed. But I'm certain God was behind it, because he's the originator of what we call natural processes. Regardless of whether a Christian believes in a young earth or an old one, we all believe this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That is, everything we see is due to the will of God.
And what do you think of the mountains of testable and verifiable evidence that the sun formed through a natural process? Why do you discount that evidence?
"...and the four rules of Conway's Game of Life can animate patterns that can compute or replicate, etc."
Hello Jon. I'm not here for a debate, just conversation.1. God of the gaps fallacy- "I don't know. God did it"
2. Begging the question- type of circular reasoning where you put the conclusion in your premise.
Huh?? keep taking the meds, kidWhich computer use theses four rules. The seven computer in your car run of the games of life rules?
I have no idea what your point is; if you can explain it, I'll try to address it.What other parts of your life use "the four rules of Conway's Game of Life"?
I have no idea what your point is; if you can explain it, I'll try to address it.E.T.A. I used Conway's Game of Life as a very simple example of emergence; does that help?
If Jesus were to cause a blind man to see, an autopsy would likely find
his eyes attached to his nerves in a "natural" manner. There is nothing
wrong with the evidence. It's the interpretation of it that is a guess.
I don't know how the sun formed. But I'm certain God was behind it, because he's the originator of what we call natural processes. Regardless of whether a Christian believes in a young earth or an old one, we all believe this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That is, everything we see is due to the will of God.
The concept of intelligent design has been around longer than Darwin. Intelligent design's prediction of finding function for the majority of DNA was validated and evolutionists claim the majority of DNA is useless was debunked. Imagine the rabbit hole scientists would have continued along if they listened to the evolutionists claims.
It's the difference between analog and digital information. Read what I wrote again:
When referring to code, meaning, semantics or syntax these are not metaphors:
"Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1A
Also, the title of that article says it all:
"Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1
There's no point to split hairs over what a chain reaction is. The point is calling what happens in the cell 'merely chain chemical reactions' is a weak attempt to sweep any complexity or design under the rug. Like saying what happenes inside a computer is merely electricity.
The difference between 'information' and 'complex specified information' was explained in posts #43, #74, #75, #95, and #153.
As Steven Meyer puts it-
"To avoid confusion and equivocation, I realized that it was necessary to distinguish:
"information content" from mere "information-carrying capacity"
"specified information" from mere "Shannon information", and
"specifie information" from mere "complexity"
Shannon's information theory tells us about the information carrying capacity of a sequence, not whether the sequence is meaningful or functional.
They were trying to show Behe miscalculated but their calculations inadvertendly showed it would take 162 million for 2 functional mutations to appear and fix within humans.
What that means is random mutations aren't the source of genetic change people like to think it is.
Unfazed by these words that appear in a peer-reviewed source?
Why don't consider "Science" a real scientific source?
I'm not sure what you mean by, 'publications that show emergence'. If you mean published papers about emergence, this is a pretty thorough treatment: The Concept of Emergence in Complexity Science.I'm not seeing what you've imagined. Are there any
peer reviewed publications that show emergence?
No to all.Are you saying the internet is showing signs of being
more intelligent than a sum of it's parts?
Is your car more intelligent than a sum of it's parts?
Is the world biosystem more intelligent than a sum
of it's parts?
Yes; yes, I think you should.Is Donkey-Kong more intelligent than a sum of it's parts?
Should I check with my great-granddaughter on this?
You are composed of new biological information.
I'm not sure what you mean by, 'publications that show emergence'. If you mean published papers about emergence, this is a pretty thorough treatment: The Concept of Emergence in Complexity Science.
If I'm understand you correctly, Christian theistic evolutionists believe it does. Christian beliefs aren't monolithic in this area.Why couldn't the same thing apply to evolution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?